Austen or Bronte

The Washington Post published an interesting article debating between Bronte or Austen. I don't think I can choose between them. Austen and the Brontes are so different but they appeal to us in different ways. Some people have argued that Austen is a little boring in that she only focuses on the conversations of the genteel class. However, Austen writes with a witty satire and creates genuinely likable characters. I mean how can one not like and respect Elizabeth Bennett or Emma Woodhouse? The Brontes, on the other hand, write such passionate, chaotic, and dramatic novels. Emily's Heathcliff and Catherine are such complex, troubling characters that readers are torn about loving or hating them. Same with Charlotte. Do we really want Jane to end up with Rochester? His actions are rather disturbing at time.

The article from The Washington Post wonders why the Brontes are making a comeback in the movies, stating that "Some analysts have wondered if the Brontes are built for economic downturn — that difficult times draw us to difficult stories. The Bronte heroes find happiness, but not without losing a hand or their eyesight, or having their manor burned down. It’s a bruised happiness, one that might appeal to the foreclosed modern viewer." This is an interesting point. I hadn't considered how our economic times may influence our choice in movies. I suppose we want to go to movies where the characters struggle and don't have an easy path. I wonder if a Wuthering Heights is in the works...

A New Movie on Jane Eyre. Why all the 19th-century movie adaptations?

I'm very excited to see the new Jane Eyre movie. See the trailer for Jane Eyre. It's playing in the Landmark Downer theatre down in Milwaukee. There have been a least nine movies made of Charlotte Bronte's fabulous novel, from 1933 up to the present. It has been a research interest of mine to reflect and hypothesize why so many 19th-century novels are made into films. What is it about that literature that inspires us to remake them? I could give the stock answer that those novels have universal truths of which we can still relate. That is true, but why else? Perhaps 19th-century novels just lend themselves to become movies. Novel reading was a source of entertainment to 19th-century audiences much like movies are a source of entertainment for us today.

I actually have done some writing on seven different versions of Dickens's Great Expectations and found that the way Estella says her final lines of the novel is slightly different in each movie. The ways she offers Pip friendship ranges from a question, to a timid request, to an assertive declarative statement. I've concluded that Estella's increase in assertiveness is a result of the changing views of femininity throughout the 20th century. That's aside from Jane Eyre but maybe it's something similar. How does each movie portray Jane and her world? And what can contemporary audience understand from a new movie? Do young women see themselves in Jane? After all, young women are no longer threatened with being a governness if they don't marry. Is it the love story? Why are we so captivated with Jane and Rochester's uncertain and ambiguous relationship? Or, is the storyline just that good? The Bronte sisters were definitely not the typical female women of the 19th century. All three sisters were rather isolated, well read, loved Byron, and published novels. Perhaps it's the Bronte myth that keeps these stories alive and well.

House and Sherlock Holmes

Every week, I DVR my favorite TV shows: How I Met Your Mother, Big Bang Theory, The Daily Show, and House. I was watching an episode of House this morning and was reminded of a connection to the Sherlock Holmes stories. I've always said that House is the modern medical version of Sherlock Holmes. They are both considerably complex characters (they are slightly arrogant, intelligent, and only interested in solving cases that are interesting). They are both classic examples of deductive reasoning. I never really thought to look into whether others have thought the same way, but a quick Google search confirms my connection: Connections Between House and Holmes. I think there's a conference paper for the Popular Culture Studies in the making. My summer project...

Frankenstein

I'm teaching Frankenstein for like the fourth time in my teaching career. I love teaching the book because students always think they know what Frankenstein is about, and they are surprised when they start reading novel. I also love the book because of all the literary references Mary Shelley trickles throughout the novel. My dissertation director reminded me that Victor Frankenstein, who stitches together human parts to create a new life, is similar to Shelley, who stitches together literature (Paradise Lost, Ancient Mariner, to name of few). It demonstrates what the goals of this blog are - to find connections and create new ideas. So far, everyone has been making connections between classes, what they're reading on the side, and what they are writing. I wonder what connections will be made with The Awakening...

Pop Culture Fiction

When Emily posted something about guilty pleasures, I remembered a post I had drafted about my guilty reading pleasures but didn't finish. As an English professor, I always feel the need to read the classics. Really, what kind of Victorian literature scholar am I if I haven't read every Charles Dickens novel (note to take Martin Chezzlewit off my bookshelf this week) but every now and then I like to delve into the popular fiction. My most recent guilty pleasure is the Girl with the Dragon Tatoo series by Stieg Larsson, a Swedish author. I've finished two of the three books so far and am anxious to start the third and final book. The story takes place in Sweden and switches between the perspectives between a journalist, who exposes economic scandals, and an alienated young computer hacker, Lisbeth Salander who is independent, brilliant, and strong but refuses to let anyone get close to her. The two work together on the case of a young woman who disappeared 40 years earlier. After working on that case together (note that I don't want to discuss that storyline too much), they go their separate ways but always seem to connect later on. While Larsson writes engaging an storyline, I'm troubled by his preoccupation of the mistreatment of women, mistreatment by their fathers, their brothers, their significant others, their guardians, the people that are supposed to keep them safe. In fact, there are not a lot of likable men in the series due to the graphic descriptions of abuses of women.  Which makes me wonder - why present such mistreatment in the novels? Is Larsson trying to expose the amount of abuse that does occur? Is he trying to articulate a way to solve the problems? I'm interested to see how he'll wrap up the trilogy. Will Salandar get revenge on the men who have harmed her? Will she change to allow people in her life? She'd lose the air of mystery and defiance that defines who she is. And what does that mean if she does change?

Refuge

I had mentioned that I would bring Refuge into class this week, but thought I'd give you all a little overview. The book is a combination of a memoir and a nature book. As Williams struggles with her mother dying of cancer, she reflects on the rising of the Great Salt Lake and its effects on the local bird sanctuary. Throughout, she tries to find reasons for the incredible loss that surrounds her. The bird sanctuary floods, and the birds have no where to go. The government has tested nuclear bombs in an uninhabited locale in Utah, which has severe consequences for the local communities. Williams has lost six aunts, her grandmother, and her mother. The descriptions of personal and environmental loss are heartbreaking.

Refuge is a creative non-fiction piece that is both personal, political, and historical, covering many of the purposes Fact and Artifact describes. She criticizes the government's choice for nuclear testings, the land developers that have eaten up and thus left no room for the birds. Everyone and everything is this book is looking for refuge, refuge from sickness, from grief over the loss of loved ones, from the loss of home and environment. Williams brilliantly connects all of that in her symbolic description of the natural surroundings. I unfortunately forgot the book in my office. I'll make sure to include an excerpt on here tomorrow.

Combining languages

Mother Tongue

I choose Amy Tan's "Mother Tongue" as the personal essay for Friday's class. Her essay captures both the characterization of her mother and herself and their struggles with being Chinese-Americans. Tan writes fluidly in her essay as she captures the essential issues and difficulties she's had growing up and being her mother's translator. The essay captures all the way of writing creative non-fiction that we discussed on Wednesday: descriptive, dramatic, impressionistic, and historical/contextual. Tan vividly describes the situations and dialogue of her mother, capturing exactly the way her mother sounds. She impressionistically organizes certain situations and as a result fully describes the cultural tensions that she experiences. Above all, though, Tan effectively reflects on how much her mother has influenced her own language choices and her desire to write for her mother.

I've always been an admirer of Tan's work. I enjoy teaching the stories from The Joy Luck Club and read Saving Fish from Drowning over the summer. A few years ago, I heard her speak at Purdue University. Her "reading" wasn't a typical reading. Rather, she chatted on stage and told stories so fluidly that it's no wonder that she has so many great books. One of the most memorable stories she shared with us occurred when she was describing a different reading she gave in a bookstore. While she was waiting in the background, she noticed a stand of cliff notes, one of which was about The Joy Luck Club. She was hilarious recalling how the authors of the cliff notes pointed out all the symbolism and themes of her own book. This says a lot about the difference between studying books and enjoying books. One thing I want to make sure to get across to my students is that you can both study and enjoy books. After all, those of us that major in or study literature are drawn to the enjoyment of reading, of discovering the beautiful language, of relating to a character's thoughts or actions, or of learning about different cultures and experiences to show us the multiple experiences of our world.

The Social Network

I recently saw The Social Network. At first I was resistant to seeing it for reasons I can't quite articulate. Perhaps I resisted because I have mixed feelings about facebook. Part of me thinks it's a great way to keep in touch, while the other part thinks that there are better things to do with my time and that friending people I barely see or have little connection to is silly. Regardless, I saw the movie to view the artistic elements in the anticipation of seeing three different points of view (at least that's what the media advertised). Usually when I think I'll see various points of view, I anticipate that I'll feel sympathy for each point. That didn't turn out to be the case. In the movie, we are introduced to a highly intelligent but socially inept and bitter Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg). The movie goes on to show how the Winklevoss twins (Armie Hammer) argue that Zuckerberg stole their idea. We also see how Zuckerberg betrays his best friend, Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield). Eisenberg did a great job of demonstrating a glimmer of regret for Zuckerberg's character, but I'm not sure that quite redeems his actions. In "Influencing People," David Denby writes that " Mark Zuckerberg, as interpreted by this film, comes off as a binary personality," which he claims will cause viewers to have differing reactions to Zuckerberg in the film. I haven't come across many who have seen the film and am curious to hear their views.

I'm also stuck on trying to figure out the accuracy of the film and whether or not the accuracy even matters for a film. A film, afterall, is a work of art and not necessarily a biography. Zuckerberg has stated that the movie gets the small details right (for example his clothes) but the reasoning for creating facebook wrong (he claims to have been dating the same girl since before facebook). It will be interesting to see how or even if the film will affect viewers' use of facebook.